|
Originally Posted by scubaccr
(Post 26771629)
The sheer profusion of very cheap China ICs must be dragging down the average ADR of the Chinee Ambs/RAs and increasing number of low revenue RAs to boot! ?
|
Originally Posted by Raffles
(Post 26771573)
The hotels could easily be selling Ambassador to people just doing 1 stay:
"Sorry sir, we can't give you a free 4pm check out but if you spend $200 now on joining Ambassador you can have it automatically." And, in the right scenario, $200 for a one-off late check-out at an IC would make sense to a lot of people. I doubt I will do 9 IC nights myself this year - probably 7-ish - but I'm getting a €700 suite on my BOGO at Le Grand so the fee washes its face easily. |
Originally Posted by stimpy
(Post 26771660)
You don't think they will set the revenue bar lower for PRC residents? I kind of think they will. Again, the marketing people want more and more RA's.
One might qualify as RA on revenue with just 14nights IC Paid nights without needing CP/HI/HIE revenue to be included, if as suggested most Ambassador's stay only 6-10nights at moderate room rates , getting on for us$6k all in ???? I am never going to be in top 10% of the RAs 1% as I don't stay in IC hotels 200plus nights a year like some FTers reportedly do. Some of my 1Q2016 nights as below, ic - hk = 7n us$430++ (3010) and 1n $291++ ( 291) ic-sin = 2n $230++ ( 460) and 1n $230++ ( 230) ic-danang = 3n $330++ ( 990) ========================================== 14n us$(4981++) average us$356++/night ========================================== |
Originally Posted by scubaccr
(Post 26771206)
As an aside, interesting figures tby IHG, that your average Ambassador makes only 6-10 nights at IC's ! ? But then realistically $200/6nights ie $33/night is worth it for upgrade savings as one gets $200 savings PLUS back. 6x Amb IC 1-cat upgrade nights is at least break even on your $150/200 outlay.
I have absolutely no issue wth a purely total IC revenue qualification for RA. It will be far cheaper and less onerous on my IHG/IC total stays and spend/nights to retain RA status on spend, at costlier IC hotels. I can eaily make 20nights paid qual rates at IC's London-PL, Paris-LG, Amstel that cost far more than 60nights in a low priced USA/China city IC hotel, and qualify as the top 1% on spend on 20 IC nights alone I can then instead of a forced staying in not so great CP/HI/HIE to reach 60 IHG nights, use those 40x spare nights to keep my Hilton HHD status , OR, even put 40nights of IHG CP/HI/HIE stays towards a new program like Hyatt/SPG/Marriott My IC spend remains the same, but IHG as a whole brand lose out as I no longer book the non-IC hotels to requal as RA! Same for me. No need to flesh out the numbers anymore, with HI, CP, etc. It makes it more streamlined and easier to manage. US based RA's and those in other territories may struggle with revenue targets due to IC's being considerably cheaper there than in much of Europe. But, we'll see. |
Originally Posted by stimpy
(Post 26771660)
You don't think they will set the revenue bar lower for PRC residents? I kind of think they will. Again, the marketing people want more and more RA's.
|
Originally Posted by Tim O'Brien
(Post 26770936)
there's no difference between discussing it, and posting it.
|
Originally Posted by Raynyan
(Post 26771797)
I don't think so.
|
Originally Posted by Tim O'Brien
(Post 26772026)
i don't get your concern over publicly available documents?
|
Originally Posted by stimpy
(Post 26772163)
Because it is the same argument that hackers use. The system administrators had no security, so it isn't a crime for me to peek in and look around. The law generally rules against this argument. If the intention of the document owner is that the document is proprietary and should not be circulated, then you shouldn't circulate it. Even if they accidentally leave the document sitting at the bar.
i like your angle on it, Liar Liar Pants Suit On Fire would be already sentanced for life:D |
Wasn't there a case where an Apple employee left a new unreleased iPhone sitting on a bar and Apple was successful in blocking or suing (I can't recall) the publication of the details of that phone?
Sorry IANAL. |
Originally Posted by Tim O'Brien
(Post 26772235)
with all respect, it's not an issue of no security, nor peeking. it's in the public domain, it's a publicly available document. i have an LL.M Masters of Law, and have absolutely no concern whatsoever from a legal perspective.
i like your angle on it, Liar Liar Pants Suit On Fire would be already sentanced for life:D |
Well, this has become something rather unnecessary. John from Loyalty Lobby posted this too, so let's not get too hung up on the legality or the holier-than-thou ness of it all.
|
Originally Posted by stimpy
(Post 26772253)
Wasn't there a case where an Apple employee left a new unreleased iPhone sitting on a bar and Apple was successful in blocking or suing (I can't recall) the publication of the details of that phone?
Sorry IANAL. in the phone case, i gather they were proactive prior to a third party publishing, after their employee's mistake. |
Originally Posted by turner32
(Post 26772462)
Well, this has become something rather unnecessary. John from Loyalty Lobby posted this too, so let's not get too hung up on the legality or the holier-than-thou ness of it all.
|
Originally Posted by Tim O'Brien
(Post 26770916)
i don't disagree, but of course the difference now, is seeing it published on their internal document, that they are phasing in the revenue model, and it's all about IC revenue, and nothing to do with the other brands that used to make up 2/3rds of the 60 night criterion.
A significant departure from the previously published criteria 60/20/3, and a great call^ |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:57 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.